Download e-book The Original Tomcat:A Fletcher Destroyer Goes To War

Free download. Book file PDF easily for everyone and every device. You can download and read online The Original Tomcat:A Fletcher Destroyer Goes To War file PDF Book only if you are registered here. And also you can download or read online all Book PDF file that related with The Original Tomcat:A Fletcher Destroyer Goes To War book. Happy reading The Original Tomcat:A Fletcher Destroyer Goes To War Bookeveryone. Download file Free Book PDF The Original Tomcat:A Fletcher Destroyer Goes To War at Complete PDF Library. This Book have some digital formats such us :paperbook, ebook, kindle, epub, fb2 and another formats. Here is The CompletePDF Book Library. It's free to register here to get Book file PDF The Original Tomcat:A Fletcher Destroyer Goes To War Pocket Guide.

See all condition definitions - opens in a new window or tab Read more about the condition. Visit my eBay store. Sign up for newsletter. Please let me know if we can be of any other assistance. Thank you for your business, it is sincerely appreciated. We hope you will come back to see us again.

Naval History and Heritage Command

Referrals are nice too Semper Fi. Shipping and handling. This item will ship to Germany , but the seller has not specified shipping options. Contact the seller - opens in a new window or tab and request a shipping method to your location. Shipping cost cannot be calculated. Please enter a valid ZIP Code. Shipping to: Worldwide.

Navigation menu

No additional import charges at delivery! This item will be shipped through the Global Shipping Program and includes international tracking. Learn more - opens in a new window or tab. There are 1 items available. Please enter a number less than or equal to 1. Select a valid country. Please enter 5 or 9 numbers for the ZIP Code.

Handling time. Will usually ship within 2 business days of receiving cleared payment - opens in a new window or tab. Taxes may be applicable at checkout. Learn more. Return policy. Refer to eBay Return policy for more details. You are covered by the eBay Money Back Guarantee if you receive an item that is not as described in the listing. Payment details. Payment methods. Other offers may also be available. Interest will be charged to your account from the purchase date if the balance is not paid in full within 6 months.

Minimum monthly payments are required. Subject to credit approval. See terms - opens in a new window or tab. Seller's payment instructions You may combine items to save on shipping costs. We ship by US Postal and we ship in a bubble padded mailer envelope to protect your Collector pin. Check out our other auctions too! Buy from a Marine Vet with confidence! May God bless the USA! This is a private listing and your identity will not be disclosed to anyone except the seller.

Back to home page Return to top. Back to home page. Listed in category:. Email to friends Share on Facebook - opens in a new window or tab Share on Twitter - opens in a new window or tab Share on Pinterest - opens in a new window or tab Add to watch list. V Steel may be cheap, but RHA is not so cheap, and requires special handling when mounting to a ship. That one of the reason the USN when to Kevlar along with weight. Now this is not to say steel armor is useless, I think it might be useful as armor protecting decks mounted at the water line, to protect the hull from missile fragment.

There it could be more flexible enought to keep from breaking the ships keel. Glof, I The post doesn't claim that armor stops everything but does explain the immense loss of kinetic energy upon penetration and the resulting mitigation in damage. II I'm aware that Burkes have anti-shrapnel Kevlar armor around key areas.

That's good, as far as it goes. What they don't have is any armor dedicated to keeping the ship itself afloat: no waterline armor, no sub-waterline armor for torpedo or mine protection, no deck or superstructure armor to prevent or mitigate general damage beyond the Kevlar protections. III I'm not suggesting that armor must only take the form of thick plates of steel. Void spaces, layered armor, composites, and even reactive armor could all be used along with whatever else makes sense.

If there's an arrangement that makes more sense for torpedo protection, for instance, that's fine. I'm generically referring to that as armor. In addition, they had areas with additional armor. When I discuss armor, I'm partly referring to simply the thickness and hardness of the skin of the ship.

Even without increasing thickness, we could build with much stronger steel.

DAPPA Main Page

V I'm not aware that RHA is used anymore in shipbuilding. Whether it should be is a question I can't answer. Whatever the cost, the cost of a sunk ship is much greater. Some things are worth their cost and armor is one of them. Commander: What mischief can I commit to re-open the Iowa class debate. Yes, they're museum ship but they are still afloat and armored like nothing else at sea. Regards the battle of the Bismark Sea, this data is useful to me. As the U. That method requires getting 'up close and personal' with the target, so AA suppression is vital.

This article help me see a bit more of that was involved that day in WW2. Don't forget that statistically the most effective anti ship weapon in WW2 was the 50 cal. The vast majority of naval ships had little or no armour destroyers etc and fighters could just plug em full of holes till they sank.

Another point is that armoured ships weren't armoured all over. Vital machinery and magazines would be within the armoured citadel whereas much of the rest of the ship would merely be structural steel. Some modern advances such as IEP, usually a single open plan command and control room plus bridge and machinery and weapons automation could allow a modern day citadel to be relatively small. For instance sealing the engines into the hull below the waterline is traditional, but not necessary with IEP. You could have the diesels in ISOs within a citadel which merely channel electric power to the motors, and also allow easy access and very rapid engine changes or maintenance.

Also worth noting that a marine diesel, provided it is redundant, represents quite a chunk of armour in and of itself. Sadly the 'ships have to be light' meme with its ignorance of hydrodynamics and inability to distinguish between topweight and bottom weight which actually provides stability seems to have taken hold in this internet age.

Also the difference between armour piercing, kinetic energy and explosive force. Kamikazes represented far higher forces than most of the dreaded anti ship missiles, never mind large calibre AP. I rather suspect that if someone magicked up a WW2 light cruiser and gave it to the USMC they'd stop wittering on about nm amphibious raids, ergms and most a2ad threats and get on with the job of closing to gun range and delivering overwhelming firepower.

I like it.

That would make for a proper modern escort for carriers and the like. As stated, armor is very useful for stopping splinters from hits tearing up adjacent compartments. WW2 experience with armor was to use 60lb 1. It also mounted on the IOWA hulls because the main armor belt was inside the ship. It would be a great start to make sure that all transverse bulkheads be 60lb armor to contain damage to a single compartment.

World War II destroyers of the United States

An armor deck above the waterline, perhaps 2" as in cruisers, thick, would help hold a ship together in the advent of a torpedo breaking the keel. It wont always work, but why not give our ships the extra chance? Most importantly, armor is cheap other than adding extra weight. The ships are too important to NOT have armor. Wayne Smith. I agree. The mystery to me is why we moved away from armor given the lessons of WWII.

Comments will be moderated for posts older than 30 days in order to reduce spam. Friday, April 12, Armor For Dummies. ComNavOps is not without compassion, though. Maybe not — but it offers a better chance than no armor. And that, right there, is the value of armor - it offers a better chance to survive hits than not having armor. Armor is meant to mitigate lesson the effects of damage. While it would be nice if the armor out and out stopped whatever the incoming weapon is, absolute stoppage is not the only purpose.

Simply reducing the amount of damage from a hit is worth the cost and weight of the armor. OK, but what about a round that hits the armor at a 45 deg angle? In combat, rounds will be impacting at all angles. Well sure that would be nice but what if the round does impact under perfect conditions and penetrates the armor? Think about that for a moment. What would happen if we had no armor?

The round would not only pass through the skin of the ship but through multiple compartments, equipment, electronics, and people until it eventually ran out of kinetic energy and stopped in something. In short, it would do a great deal of damage beyond the initial penetration. Well, the amount of kinetic energy expended by the round in passing through the armor will be such that the round will have little left for further penetration deeper into the ship — damage will be greatly limited compared to not having armor.

Speaking more generally, now, what if the torpedo that no modern armor can stop explodes a bit further away than optimum? What if the incoming missile that laughs at armor is exploded by a CIWS and the debris strikes the ship? What if a proximity-fused anti-radar missile explodes nearby and sends out a hail of shrapnel? In each of these cases, armor would greatly mitigate the resulting damage. Remember, in combat a ship is far more likely to encounter near-misses, shrapnel, and off-angle hits than perfect hits.

The ability to shrug off, or greatly mitigate, the sub-optimal hits is what armor grants. Of course! Even then, the damage will be less with armor than without. Armor will stop weapons if the thickness is sufficient. This is by far my most intense project. First thing is I knew it would not be percent. That goes completely against the way I want to work, but it is a reality. That is simply a given when a deadline is staring you in the face along with little details such as time and money.

Bottom line: it is not a photograph. In starting a project, I collect as many base drawings as possible. This is, sadly, where the first compromises enter the project.

Drawings simply do not match up. I have a fairly extensive collection of books to rely on for the initial search. One, whom shall not be named, has a great reputation for plans and models, but his plan view lines do not link with his profiles and sections.